The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1887-03-29
The Mandamus Case.
BEFORE JUDD, c. J.

THURSDAY, March %, 1887.
Nakamura Munataro VS.. 4. w. HaaIilio
Deputy District Justice of HamakQa, Hawaii
Petition Tor mandamus. The petitioner, by
his attorney, Mr.. Katsura, applied to me fol
a writ OF mandamus, setting forth that OF
the 10th of February, 1887, the petitioner
sued out from respondent, who was Deputy
District Justice of the District of Hamakus
HAWAII, summons against one w. H. Pur.
Wis, of kukuihaele, Hamakus, Hawaii. the
master of said petitioner under a written
labor contract, to cancel said contract on the
ground Of breach thereof, also prayinp for
costs, etc.
Both parties were summoned by said re.
spondent to appear before him on the l4th
of February, 1887, and they duly appeared.
but the said respondent refused and declined
to hear the case, and forfeited the costs de-
posted by petitioner. The petitioner prayed
this Court to issue writ of mandamus tn
show cause why the said trial should NOT be
held.
This Court issued a writ on the 18th of
March, commanding the said respondent TO
hear the case without delay, or show cause
why he should not within ten DAYS after the
service of the writ upon him.
On the 2lst of Mach an answer came from
respondent, admitting that he issued a sum
mons on the 10th of February, 1887, against
w. II. Purvis on the said Nakamura NINA
taro to cancel the labor contract between
them, and the respondent sat on the 18th of
February as Deputy District Justice of Ha-
makua to hear the case. The petitioner
claimed that he was a servant bound to serve
w. b. Purvis, the defendant, under a labor
contract. and alleged that the contract was
broken by defendant and the law of masters
and servants violated, and asked the Court
to annul the contract and to award damages
and costs to plaintiff, in accordance with sec
ton 1873 of the Civil Code.
Counsel for the defendent, J. K. Kauua-
mano and q. Paskiki, urged that the 1423d
section of the Civil Code was repealed bv an
Act of the Legislature approved on the 18th
of Jaly, 1874; also that this is civil case. and
the amount of damages is not laid in the
complaint; also, that Nakamura Munataro
mad brought suit against his master, w. 81.
Purvis, before J. P. Miau, District Justice of
to cancel the contract. on the
ground that his master owed him. but the
District Justice had not decided the case.
The answer further says that respondent
decided not to hear the case because he Was
Of opinion that as the Act of july I3. 1874,
repealed "all laws and parts of laws consis-
tent therewIth," 1t repealed section !. 423 of
the Civil Code, and the Court has now no
jurisdiction to try cases for infringement of
contracts between masters and servants.
Also that as the District Justice had enter
-s-AALcN TIC CdSc u tue plalQLlu against de-
fendant and decided against him Ia mart
and held the case as regards the suit. SIS
wages, the respondent decided the case in
favor OF the defendant, and ordered him 10
pay costs of 50 90.
The petitioner demurs to the answer. and
AYERS that the Act of 1874, referred to in the
answer, only regulates the general jurisdic-
ION OF District Justices with regard to civil
'ases founded on pecuniary demands. and
las nothing to do with the relations between
masters and servants, and over which the
District Justices have by law Jurisdiction
conferred upon them. Also, that q nendinc |
ult for wages between the same parties irl |
he same Court is no bar to an action to sar- |
,eI the contract.
By the Court-It is to be regretted that
ne respondent has not appeared By counsel /
u IN person. but relies upon his answer. / 1
ind from the statement Of petitioners /
counsel that j. 2. Miau, the District Jnstiee. |
lecl1ned TO allow the uniting of the two /
ctIons. one for wages and one to cancel the /
contract, and that is ali that was done bv'
I'M. but chat the Deputy Justice. a. vi. :
1asiIllo, who acted IN the absence of Misu.
card the points Of defendant Purvis' conn